The purpose of this article is to test criminal opportunity theories of victimization for the crimes of burglary and household larceny. Using the National Crime Survey and the Victim Risk Supplement, this test includes direct behavioral and ecological measures of concepts central to the theory. Ecological concepts are measured at several different levels of aggregation. Of particular importance is the introduction of a control for the dangerousness of the block in which the housing unit is located. Other ecological variables include (a) the environmental design of the housing unit (location, protective practices, single family versus other), (b) the degree of social disorganization in the neighborhood, (c) the location of commercial establishments in the neighborhood, and (d) the perceived dangerousness of the neighborhood. Measures of key behavioral concepts include (a) time spent in the house during the day, and (b) time spent in the house during the evening. None of the environmental design variables have a significant effect on victimization. The significance of the other ecological and behavioral measures differ by type of crime. These results are discussed in light of the importance of refining opportunity concepts, especially with respect to how they apply to different types of crime.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Block, R.
, M. Felson, and C. R. Block. 1984. “Crime Victimization and the United States Occupational Structure: Victimization Risk of the Civilian Labor Force.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Cincinnati, OH, November.
2.
Brantingham, P. J.
and P. L. Brantingham. 1981. Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Bursik, Robert J., Jr.
, and Jim Webb. 1982. “Community Change and Patterns of Delinquency.”American Journal of Sociology88:24-42.
4.
Cantor, David
and James P. Lynch. 1988. “Empirical Test of Opportunity Theories of Victimization: Multi-level and Domain-Specific Models.” Draft Final Report submitted to National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
5.
Clarke, R. V.
1983. “Situational Crime Prevention: Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Scope.” Pp. 225-256 in Crime and Justice, An Annual Review of Research, edited by M. Tonry and A. Reiss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Cohen, Lawrence
and David Cantor. 1981. “Residential Burglary in the United States: Life-style and Demographic Factors Associated with the Probability of Victimization.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency18:113-127.
7.
Cohen, Lawrence
and Marcus Felson. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.”American Sociological Review44:588-608.
8.
Cohen, Lawrence
, J. R. Kluegel, and Kenneth Land. 1981. “Social Inequality and Predatory Criminal Victimization: An Exposition and Test of a Formal Theory.”American Sociological Review46:505-524.
9.
Collins, James J.
, Brenda Cox, and P. A. Langan. 1986. “Job Activities and Personal Victimization: Implications for Theory.”Social Science Research16:345-360.
10.
Cornish, Derek B.
and Ronald V. Clarke. 1986. The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.
11.
Cornish, Derek B.
and Ronald V. Clarke. 1987. “Understanding Crime Displacement: An Application of Rational Choice Theory.”Criminology25:4.
12.
Fowler, F. G.
and T. W. Mangione. 1981. “An Experimental Effort to Reduce Crime and Fear of Crime in an Urban Residential Neighborhood: Re-evaluation of the Hartford Neighborhood Crime Prevention Program.” Draft executive summary. Cambridge: Harvard/MIT Center for Survey Research.
13.
Gottfredson, Michael
. 1984. Victims of Crime: The Dimensions of Risk. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
14.
Greenberg, Stephanie
, William Rohe, and J. R. Williams. 1982. Safe and Secure Neighborhoods: Physical Characteristics and Informal Territorial Control in High and Low Crime Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
15.
Hindelang, Michael
, Michael Gottfredson, and James Garafalo. 1978. Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Formulation For a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
16.
Hough, Michael
. 1987. “Offenders' Choice of Targets: Findings from the Victims Survey.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:355-369.
17.
Hunter, Albert
. 1974. Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Change of Chicago's Local Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Jacobs, Jane
. 1961. The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.
19.
Jeffery, C. R.
1977. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
Lynch, James P.1987. “Routine Activities and Victimization at Work.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:283-300.
21.
Lynch, James P.
and Albert D. Biderman. 1984. “Cars, Crime and Crime Classification: What the UCR Does Not Tell Us That it Should.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Cincinnati, OH, November.
22.
Maxfield, Michael
. 1987. “Household Composition, Routine Activity and Victimization: A Comparative Analysis.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:301-320.
23.
McCutcheon, A. L.
1987. Latent Structure Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
McDowell, David
, Colin Loftin, and Brian Wersima. 1989. “Multi-level Risk Factors for Burglary Victimization.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Reno, NV, November.
25.
Miethe, Terance D.
, Mark Stafford, and J. Scott Long. 1987. “Social Differentiation in Victimization: An Application of Routine Activity/Lifestyle Theory Using Panel Data.”American Sociological Review52:184-194.
26.
Newman, Oscar
. 1972. Defensible Space. New York: Collier Books.
27.
Sampson, R. A.
1986. “Neighborhood Family Structure and the Risk of Criminal Victimization.” Pp. 25-46 in The Social Ecology of Crime, edited by J. Byrne and R. Sampson. New York: Springer-Verlag.
28.
Sampson, R. A.
, Thomas Castellano, and John Laub. 1981. Analysis of National Crime Survey Data to Study Serious Delinquent Behavior: Volume 5. Juvenile Delinquency Behavior and Its Relation to Neighborhood Characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
Sampson, R. A.
and J. D. Wooldredge. 1987. “Linking the Micro and Macro-level Dimensions of Lifestyle, Routine Activity and Opportunity Models of Predatory Victimization.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:371-394.
30.
Scarr, Harry A.
with J. L. Pinsky and Deborah S. Wyatt. 1973. Patterns of Burglary. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
31.
Schuerman, Leo A.
and Solomon Kobrin. 1983. “Crime and Urban Ecological Processes: Implications for Public Policy.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Denver, CO, November.
32.
Shannon, Lyle W.
with Judith L. McKim, James P. Curry, and Lawrence J. Haffner. 1988. Criminal Career Continuity: Its Social Context. New York: Human Sciences Press.
33.
Skogan, Wesley
and Michael Maxfield. 1981. Coping With Crime. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
34.
Smith, D.
and G. R. Janjoura. 1989. “Household Characteristics, Neighborhood Composition and Victimization Risk.”Social Forces68:621-640.
35.
Sparks, Richard F.
, Hazel G. Genn, and David J. Dodd. 1977. Surveying Victims: A Study of the Measurement of Criminal Victimization, Perceptions of Crime, and Attitudes to Criminal Justice. New York: Wiley.
36.
Stark, Rodney
. 1987. “Deviant Places: A Theory of the Ecology of Crime.”Criminology25: 893-909.
37.
Taub, Richard
, D. Garth Taylor, and J. D. Dunham. 1984. Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Taylor, Ralph
and Stephen Gottfredson. 1986. “Environmental Design, Crime and Prevention: Examination of Community Dynamics.” Pp. 387-416 in Communities and Crime, edited by M. Tonry and A. Reiss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Van Dijk, J. J.
and C. Steinmetz. 1983. “Victimization Surveys: Beyond Measuring the Volume of Crime.”Victimology8:291-301.
